Does publicly "doubting" the McCanns add to the distress of the McCann family?

[Lyall]

This is my last post on the subject ... this happens to be a discussion forum ... which I think is probably unique in allowing all points of view to be aired ... and should be treasured as such.

You may not have noticed ... 'those people' need absolutely no encouragement from me or any one else to spout their bile ... they have been doing it for many years and they will continue to do it for many years more under various cheerleaders and against whoever takes their fancy at the time ... unless the law curbs the ringleaders.

I think the most valuable lesson for anyone reading this exchange today may be the exposure you have given to yourself.

They feed off your monitoring of them and discussion of their activities. If you haven't worked that out by now I don't know what to say to you. But as I say that's your business.

[Lyall]

we discuss many groups and individuals associated with this case who are not represented here, so why not these groups?  In any case, who is to say that members of some of the groups we are discussing do not also post here (though they may prefer not to admit it)?

Because if the position was reversed and I or others started talking about the activity of other groups (who are represented here, but never mentioned) the posts/threads would be deleted.

[Alfred R Jones]

Because if the position was reversed and I or others started talking about the activity of other groups (who are represented here, but never mentioned) the posts/threads would be deleted.

Then your beef is with the forum owner, not me.  What sort of activities are you wanting to discuss that you are not allowed to anyway?  Can you give me a "for instance"?*  As this thread is about publicly doubting the McCanns then it's probably not all that relevant to the thread.  Why not try and start a thread to discuss the activities of these other groups that you feel are worthy of discussion. 

*Do you mean stuff like "paid keyboard chimps and shills", that kind of thing? 

[Lyall]

why do you care what other groups people belong too peoples online actives are none of your buissness either  are other peoples opinions the mcanns put themselves in the spotlight   with ther  child neglect that is everybodys buisness

There is public interest in the case, you're right.

Do people think that those convinced Madeleine was abducted won't still be discussing the case years from now? Of course some of them - from all over the world - will be.

[Lyall]

Then your beef is with the forum owner, not me.  What sort of activities are you wanting to discuss that you are not allowed to anyway?  Can you give me a "for instance"?*  As this thread is about publicly doubting the McCanns then it's probably not all that relevant to the thread.  Why not try and start a thread to discuss the activities of these other groups that you feel are worthy of discussion. 

*Do you mean stuff like "paid keyboard chimps and shills", that kind of thing? 

I don't really want to discuss the activity of those groups, I'm just saying it wouldn't be allowed if I did.

It would be dull for one thing, just as discussing the nuts on facebook and twitter is. They're not exactly towering intellects are they.

[Benice]

why do you care what other groups people belong too peoples online actives are none of your buissness either  are other peoples opinions the mcanns put themselves in the spotlight   with ther  child neglect that is everybodys buisness

Well you obviously care as most of your posts are slagging of supporters.    Why don't you ignore them - if IYO it's nobody's business what other people think.        Your accusation of child neglect is libellous.       If you don't think the hundreds of thousands of other parents who have adopted the same child checking arrangements as the McCanns (i.e. they leave their children alone and asleep in their apartments while they go off to dinner) are also child neglectors    - then IMO  you need to explain why not  -  or stop making such libellous claims.

The Portuguese authorities  stated that for an offence of neglect to have been committed  an 'intent to abandon'  would need to be proved.   The regular checking ruled that out. 

[G-Unit]

Anyone who believes everything the press say is an unthinking sheep  is what you said..


The archiving report never requested the McCAnns to PROVE their innocence...they didn't use the word provar they used the word comprovar...which means to demonstrate...it's a bad transaltion which I picked up...wonder how many more there are

Whatever. They neither proved or demonstrated it. Same result.

[G-Unit]

I have already explained that it doesn't require for those family members to actively seek out and read that shit themselves for it to potentially cause distress.  The aim of groups such as the facebook page Controversy and twitter is to recruit new "sceptics" and to spread their hateful agenda as far and as wide as possible.  These people actively latch onto other public interest stories in order to advertise their "doubts"  about the McCanns.  It is not beyond the realms of possibility that at school and at university (as an example) the twins will encounter people who have come across these fanatical posts and take great delight in using them to taunt, bully and mock two perfectly innocent young people.   I'm not for one second  suggesting that there is anything that can be done about it mind you, I just think it's another facet of this tragedy worth considering.  Sorry if you do not.

It's a bit like when Princess Diana died. Some of the rumours at the time must have upset her sons and their family.

[Brietta]

It's a bit like when Princess Diana died. Some of the rumours at the time must have upset her sons and their family.

Wonder how many sites were set up to 'doubt bomb' members of the Royal family, the Fayeds,or even the Princess herself.  How many FOI requests have there been or petitions started for public inquiries for whatever hobby horse someone may be on at the time?

The conspiracy theories were legion at the time and are still to be found on the internet but do we still have ongoing blogs etc 'updating' themselves constantly on the events of 1997 dedicated to denigrating and making the most horrid accusations about the families of the victims?

Is there a # on twitter where 'truth seekers' and 'doubters' keep in touch to discuss their targets of choice and arrange campaigns against them?

The organised campaigns to cause distress against the McCann family, with their sometime designated obstruction to aspects of the investigation into Madeleine's case itself, are an aberration ... but when one takes a look at some of the main players who include in their ranks an axe murderer and an abuser of the elderly, one has to step back in amazement and realise just why it is such a nasty, pitiless gathering together of negativity.

[G-Unit]

Wonder how many sites were set up to 'doubt bomb' members of the Royal family, the Fayeds,or even the Princess herself.  How many FOI requests have there been or petitions started for public inquiries for whatever hobby horse someone may be on at the time?

The conspiracy theories were legion at the time and are still to be found on the internet but do we still have ongoing blogs etc 'updating' themselves constantly on the events of 1997 dedicated to denigrating and making the most horrid accusations about the families of the victims?

Is there a # on twitter where 'truth seekers' and 'doubters' keep in touch to discuss their targets of choice and arrange campaigns against them?

The organised campaigns to cause distress against the McCann family, with their sometime designated obstruction to aspects of the investigation into Madeleine's case itself, are an aberration ... but when one takes a look at some of the main players who include in their ranks an axe murderer and an abuser of the elderly, one has to step back in amazement and realise just why it is such a nasty, pitiless gathering together of negativity.

Steady! Take a pause for breath Brietta. You seem to think everyone who has a different opinion on this case than yours are members of some cohesive 'group' who all agree. Do you, as a 'pro' agree with everything other 'pros' do and say then?

[Miss Taken Identity]

Well you obviously care as most of your posts are slagging of supporters.    Why don't you ignore them - if IYO it's nobody's business what other people think.        Your accusation of child neglect is libellous.       If you don't think the hundreds of thousands of other parents who have adopted the same child checking arrangements as the McCanns (i.e. they leave their children alone and asleep in their apartments while they go off to dinner) are also child neglectors    - then IMO  you need to explain why not  -  or stop making such libellous claims.

The Portuguese authorities  stated that for an offence of neglect to have been committed  an 'intent to abandon'  would need to be proved.   The regular checking ruled that out.

It is not libel it is fact. It isn't a nice terminology, but it would be argued they did abandon their children-even for brief periods.

Maddie was abandoned, left to her own defence- proved

The 'checking' was listening, not physically checking, even though they claimed they were going into the apartment to'check'- The timescales being changed, and forgotten very quickly, suggests the checks were not as regular as is suggested.

[Brietta]

Steady! Take a pause for breath Brietta. You seem to think everyone who has a different opinion on this case than yours are members of some cohesive 'group' who all agree. Do you, as a 'pro' agree with everything other '[ censored word ]' do and say then?

You made the comparison ... however you are unable to indicate a comparable h*te campaign directed at any member of Princess Diana's family ... doesn't that tell you something? (rhetorical question)

[Lyall]

You made the comparison ... however you are unable to indicate a comparable h*te campaign directed at any member of Princess Diana's family ... doesn't that tell you something? (rhetorical question)

Not at members of Diana's family, no.

Charles's family though is another matter entirely.

But the two cases are different and particularly in one very obvious way: Diana wasn't 3 yrs old.

[Miss Taken Identity]

You made the comparison ... however you are unable to indicate a comparable h*te campaign directed at any member of Princess Diana's family ... doesn't that tell you something? (rhetorical question)

like the twins growing up and finding out lies /rumours about their mother. The young princes had to endure  front page stories about their mother being pregnant-getting engaged to Al Fyed, and being murdered by their father and or grandparents!

And as much as Diana was revered and pitied, many hated her. And that was evident by her being ousted from the Royal Family.

That would be a comparison would it not?

[Carana]

Not at members of Diana's family, no.

Charles's family though is another matter entirely.

But the two cases are different and particularly in one very obvious way: Diana wasn't 3 yrs old.

Diana wasn't, obviously, but the princes were - and the twins are still - children and quite likely to be distressed by unsubstantiated headlines and social media, although quite probably to a lesser extent during the princes' childhood than that of the twins.